Cllr Barry Coppock, who was retiring from Thanet District Council, had sent his best wishes for the future success of the Airport. It was agreed that the Chairman write to Cllr Coppock to thank him for his valuable contribution to the Committee. 
ACTION AJH

2.1 ILS Beam: In response to Cllr Flaherty, Alastair Robertson reported that installation had been completed. However, due to technical difficulties, the ILS was not yet operational as had been hoped. The difficulties having been overcome, a final flight check was awaited, after which the beam would become operational, hopefully within a week or two.

2.2 Alastair Robertson reported that he had investigated complaints of aircraft flying off route over Monkton and other villages, and analysis of complaints figures had not borne this out. Nick Cole appreciated that without plotting equipment it was not possible to monitor routes. However, he maintained that it was still a daily occurrence, whether or not residents were making formal complaints. It was agreed that Messrs Robertson and Cole discuss the matter between themselves to try to alleviate the problem.

2.2.1 Dennis Hart had assisted two residents with completing complaints forms but stressed the importance of individuals making formal complaints to the Airport, rather than relying on their local representative to do so on their behalf.

3.1 Tony Freudmann reported that the Wiggins group had recently completed an exhaustive budget process. The Airport would make a trading loss of £5m in the current financial year (ending 1st April) which would be supported by Wiggins funds. Assumptions were that these losses would be reduced in the next financial year to somewhere in the region of £3m. Cost-cutting measures that had been taken last year in the form of redundancies would not be repeated. Other cost cutting exercises, such as contracting out, had been investigated, resulting in confirmation that the current team and management practices were efficient and cost effective.

3.1.1 The Airport’s main difficulty at present was that the principal freight operator was a charter airline, with aircraft arriving and leaving at different times of the day and night, necessitating a full complement of ground staff at all times.

3.1.2 A conservative estimate that cargo tonnage would increase during the year from 32,000 tonnes to 55,000 tonnes had been assumed, the additional traffic coming from one, or possibly two, major freight operators on a scheduled basis, utilising staff more efficiently.

3.1.3 Mr Freudmann explained that due to developments in the aircraft industry the announcement expected at the end of last year would not now be forthcoming. However, he remained hopeful of introducing scheduled passenger operations from the Autumn based on three rotations per day to a European airport for onward destinations, plus one rotation to an airport in the North of England, as yet undetermined. Finalisation had been delayed by the international situation. In addition, negotiations were in hand concerning the introduction of possible charter routes for 2004.

3.1.4 Assuming the additional freight operator and passenger flights became established, Wiggins were making the cautious assumption that the Airport would break even financially for the following year.

3.2 Responding to Trevor Herron, Alastair Robertson estimated that freight tonnage to April 2003 would be 40-42,000 tonnes. It had been a disappointing year due to the current general decline in the freight industry. However, Mr Robertson predicted that tonnage would increase to 50,000 per month for the year to April 2004.

3.3 Paul Tipple, speaking in his capacity of Chairman of E Kent Rail Action Group, reported that the Strategic Rail Authority’s consultative document on CTRL domestic services now included, in addition to its core option, a sixth option to run fast through services from London via Ashford to Canterbury and on to Ramsgate. The Action Group felt that it had now more than amply demonstrated the operational necessity of taking passenger trains through to Ramsgate, where important facilities for stabling and engineering existed. The Group had looked again at cost benefit analysis and were confident that this could be brought close to that supporting CTRL’s core option. In addition, the case for bringing regional economic regeneration benefits into East Kent was, Mr Tipple felt, likely to be accepted by central Government. Were this to prove the case, the Group was confident that new fast trains with an overall journey time to Ramsgate of 1hr05mins could be operational by 2007.

3.3.1 Trevor Herron pointed out that the closing date for the CTRL consultation document was 30th April, and considered it important that MACC should respond to the Strategic Rail Authority in support of the East Kent Rail Action Group. The meeting agreed. Mr Herron confirmed a standardised approach between Dover, Thanet and Canterbury Councils.
Action TH & AJH

3.4 Paul Tipple confirmed that planning permission had been granted (subject to planning conditions) for a new hangar for MK Airlines. Once fully operational, it was expected that MK Airlines would progressively increase the size of its skilled workforce from some 28 to about 50, with the prospect of further increases in line with business development.

3.5 John Bragg and Len Claisse enquired as to the implications of the second edition of the SERAS report on Airports in the South East of England which now included the option of expansion at Gatwick. Paul Tipple said that Wiggins would be responding, bearing in mind that they had previously supported expansion at Gatwick to provide, together with Heathrow, a hub capability in the SE and so allow Manston to exploit its identified potential.

3.5.1 Assuming that plans for an airport at Cliffe were abandoned, and Gatwick were to be expanded, Paul Tipple said this eliminated the prospect of Manston closing down in 2016 (or thereabouts). Wiggins’ growth forecast had taken into account the possibility of an additional runway at Stansted, giving Manston opportunity to expand in the short to mid-term, when greatest demand for increased runway capacity had been predicted by the Government. Mr Tipple concluded that he did not feel that expansion to Gatwick or Stansted posed a threat to the development of Manston.

3.5.2 Trevor Herron pointed out that Thanet, Dover and Canterbury Councils’ further submission might vary from that of Wiggins. The Councils had supported the expansion of Stansted, and might not take the same view with Gatwick.

4.1 Complaints: During the quarter Dec 02 – Feb 03, 227 complaint forms had generated 387 complaints. The total number of individual complainants was 17. It was noted that this was about half the number for the same period the previous year.

4.1.1 The two flights generating the most complaints (but only 4 in each case) were a night departure on 7th December and a training flight on 25th January.

4.1.2 The Chairman noted that no particular incident had attracted more than 4 official complaints. He also noted that complaints from the Herne Bay area had plummeted, and those from Ramsgate had also dropped. Alastair Robertson thought this was be partly due to the introduction of Chapter III noise restrictions, but also that some residents may not now be forwarding official complaints. Mr Robertson urged members to pass all complaints on to the Airport, either by mail or by using the e-mail facility, as without such information, it would not be possible to assess the situation.

4.2 Runway Utilisation figures were similar to those for the same period in the previous year, showing the effect of prevailing east winds in February. Alastair Robertson had noted a slight shift away from the desired percentage of runway usage over the past two years, because of changes in wind direction which could perhaps be due to global warming.

4.3 Sec 106 Compliancy: There had been 10 flights between the hours of 2300 and 0700, most of which had been coastguard flights. Three out of hours flights during the quarter had attracted fines of £1,000 each, which money would in due course pass to the Airport Community Fund.

5.1 Noise Abatement Routes: Paul Tipple said a letter was being sent to TDC agreeing the terms.

5.1.1 The Chairman referred to an earlier item which showed that agreed routes could not be enforced until such time as up to date tracking equipment could be installed. He acknowledged that most new airports had this problem.

5.2.Noise Management:

5.2.1 Paul Tipple apologised for the delay in producing the expected paper on Noise Management strategy. The Manchester Airport consultants had experienced technical problems, one of the results of which was that no readings had been available from the Western noise monitor, but these had now been resolved. Installation and operation was expected shortly, after which readings would be available from that monitor, plus the second at Clarendon School, with TDC having taken responsibility for the mobile monitoring unit.

5.2.2 Noise Management Strategy:
In advance of the issue of the Strategy document, Mr Tipple outlined major key issues that it would cover:

5.2.2.1 A clear statement of sources of noise ground noise from the airport estate, and airborne noise from aircraft.

5.2.2.2 An assessment of the extent of intrusion.

5.2.2.2.1 Ground noise should not be a major source of community disturbance apart from particular pockets such as the north end of Cliffsend, but there were ways of addressing this and initiating mitigating measures.

5.2.2.2.2 Once the Western monitor had become operational, there would be an effective noise monitoring system producing comprehensive and accurate noise contours for the Airport, from which the effects of development of the Airport could be mapped out.

5.2.2.3 Issues raised by airport noise, particularly final approach landing noise over Ramsgate.

5.2.2.3.1 Working with operators towards introducing newer, quieter aircraft/engines; together with moving the landing threshold further towards the West by extending the runway by at least 300 metres (still within the estate of the Airport) as finances permitted. Projected noise contours, were this to be done, had shown that there would be a considerable reduction in noise levels over central Ramsgate from the current 57dbLeq.

5.2.2.3.2 Working with airline operators on improvement of operating practices and procedures to reduce noise levels; working on possible improvement of climb-out procedures; working on achieving known Chapter IV environmental limitations rather than wait for them to be imposed.

5.2.2.3.3 Introduction of new methods to achieve better control of the noise management regime. A noise insulation scheme was already in existence, now accepted by TDC. Installation of a new radar system enabling the introduction of an accurate method of route tracking. By the time the Airport had reached a break-even point, Mr Tipple hoped it would be possible to commission work on a new system.

5.2.2.4 Mick Denyer (Manston) had been surprised that only one residence in Manston qualified under the Noise Insulation Scheme. He asked whether the footprint was likely to be extended to include other Manston properties. Paul Tipple said it was not at present, although he had agreed to look at some individual residences at the eastern end of the runway. The footprint had already been extended in Cliffsend to some degree. More accurate readings would be made when the noise monitoring installation had been completed, and the situation would be regularly reviewed.

5.2.2.5 Kelvin Holdom said residents of Smugglers Leap (a mobile home site) had requested consideration and would appreciate a visit from Paul Tipple. Both Mr Tipple and Paul Martin (TDC) pointed out that it was not general standard practice to sound-insulate residences that were not of brick construction, due to noise disturbance penetrating roofs and walls, despite the fact that Smugglers Leap was within the relevant noise contour. Mr Tipple would be happy to meet the residents to discuss the situation.

5.2.2.6 Jim Mannering asked whether a wall or similar shield could be constructed to alleviate noise from aircraft just prior to take off, but Alastair Robertson said care had to be taken when considering construction of vertical obstacles, and whilst a low wall might be a possibility, the residents involved would be advised to consider such a change in aspect. Paul Tipple had, at a meeting with Cliffsend residents, agreed to investigate possible methods of alleviating the problem.

5.2.2.7 John Garland felt that the residents of Cliffsend would view the possibility of piecemeal development of the runway to the West with alarm. The MasterPlan had included possible extension of the runway in both directions. Had Wiggins now decided against an easterly extension? Paul Tipple said that small extensions to the eastern end had not been precluded. Alastair Robertson said it would be possible to extend to the east by 150/200 metres, for departures only, with a landing threshold 200/300m at the western end resulting in incoming aircraft approaching Ramsgate some 2-300ft higher than at present.

5.2.2.8 Members had received the Average Noise Level Report, covering January 02 – February 03, showing the average of maximum readings from actual aircraft movements monitored from the roof of Clarendon School, Ramsgate(attached.) John Bragg asked what level a 747 would register. This was estimated at around 90db dependent on payload, against a level for Concorde of over 130db.

5.2.2.9 Nick Cole asked the total budget for the insulation scheme. Bearing in mind that some residences may already have been fitted with insulation, would this enable the extent of the scheme to be enlarged? Mr Tipple confirmed that sufficient funds had been set aside to provide for a maximum of £2,000 per household plus an additional amount for contingencies.

5.3 Pollution monitoring: Paul Martin (TDC)

5.3.1 Air diffusion tube readings for both Nitrogen Dioxide and Benzene (attached) had previously been circulated. Paul Martin pointed out that the higher nitrogen dioxide readings were due to general road traffic. The current level of activity at the Airport was not sufficient to drive up levels, which remained below target levels set by Government.

5.3.2 Commenting on the sporadic strong smell of aircraft fuel around Manston, Mick Denyer asked whether the particles were carcinogenic. Paul Martin replied that although benzene was a carcinogen, TDC had an instantaneous measuring station under the final approach at Ramsgate, and recordings so far showed no problem with levels. Whilst Mr Martin had experienced the strong odour himself, he pointed out that the human nose was extremely sensitive and what may seem to be a high level of toxicity was in fact extremely low and short-lived, albeit unpleasant.

5.4 Section 106 Agreement: Trevor Herron reminded members that the current agreement would come to an end in September, and he would be inviting suggestions for any revisions to the document. Mr Herron felt that the current S106 Agreement had proved very successful. Some base information for the "second phase" had become available, but members were asked to submit in writing any concerns regarding the current Agreement. The S106 Agreement between TDC and Wiggins (as Airport owners) had been used as a model by many other Councils. ACTION ALL

5.4.1 In response to Cllr Ron Flaherty, Mr Herron explained that the current S106 would continue in its present form, unless or until replaced. The Agreement had been for a duration of three years, as it had not been known how quickly and on what scale the Airport would develop. It was likely that the second phase Agreement would be over a similarly short period for the same reason.

5.4.2 John Garland wondered which body would be responsible for monitoring crops and soil content around the Airport, as traffic increased. Paul Martin thought it would be the responsibility of Defra. (formerly MAFF). Michael Baxter, who crop-farmed at Sarre, had, so far, experienced no contamination problems.

5.4.3 Alastair Robertson, amongst other members present, had been aware of a huge plume of thick black smoke emanating from the nearby Fire Training School during the meeting, and asked whether such emissions were subject to monitoring. Paul Martin confirmed that samples had shown no major pollution problem, and added that materials were subject to screening before being burned.

6.1 The Chairman reported that grants had been awarded to seven of the first ten applications for funding (see attached report). The Chairman thought that good use had been found for the money, which should help to reassure people that the funds were being used to benefit community projects. It was hoped that publicity for the existence of the Fund would come from press coverage of the recent presentations at the Airport, but members were asked to publicise it by word of mouth.

6.2 Further applications were being received and, when sufficient funds became available, would be considered.

7.1 Mick Denyer asked whether any progress had been made concerning closing the Manston Road. Trevor Herron responded that the matter had not been progressed due to insufficient increase in business at present. Mr Herron reported that when the plan was put forward, Manston Parish Council was split between those who did and did not wish the road closure to take place. Mr Denyer said the Parish Council had now changed and was in favour of the move.

8. DATES for 2003

8.1 Future meetings during 2003 would be held on the following dates:

June Tuesday 24th 2pm
September Wednesday 24th 7.30pm
December Tuesday 16th 2pm

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 4.05pm

MIN.MAR03

KIACC INDEX